Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RUNNING HEAD: “I am also a Colorado native” 1
“I am also a Colorado Native”: A Perspective of Identity-Work in Conversation
Brittney Johnston
March 19, 2018
Thesis Advisor: Barbara Fox, Department of Linguistics
Honors Council Representative: Zygmunt Frajyzngier, Department of Linguistics
Outside Reader: Chase Raymond, Department of Linguistics
Outside Reader: Timothy Kuhn, Department of Communication
University of Colorado at Boulder
Honors Thesis
“I am also a Colorado native” 2
Abstract
Identity is socially constructed and emerges through discourse, where identity is claimed,
negotiated and challenged through linguistic practices. Both on-record and off-record linguistic
resources are utilized as mechanisms of identity construction and negotiation. This project
involves analyzing a conversation among a focus group of four individuals, who are negotiating
the identity, “Colorado native”. The research draws upon conventions of conversation analysis to
reveal identity-work that is being done in a minute-long segment of conversation; more
specifically, this research builds upon current linguistic research done by Bucholtz and Hall
(2005) and Kitzinger (2005), as well as focuses on off-record elements of conversation like gaze
organization, gesturing, and facial expressions that occur in cohesion with identity construction.
Off-record behaviors such as gaze organization, gesturing and facial expressions have seldom
been analyzed with identity and from a conversation analysis perspective. This study provides
insight into the micro-linguistic practices of identity formation and negotiation in discourse
through looking at identity-work being done in a conversation between Colorado natives and
non-natives.
Keywords: identity, identity-work, conversation analysis, gaze organization, on-record,
off-record, linguistics, Colorado native, native vs non-native
“I am also a Colorado native” 3
Introduction
In recent years, Colorado has experienced immense population growth. According to the
United States Census Bureau, Colorado has experienced a 11.5% change in population from
April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017 (United States Census Bureau). Many implications arise from such
a dramatic change in population—for instance, there are issues pertaining to use of water
resources, structural concerns involving living space and capacity, and environmental concerns
over trail overuse and ecological damage. Perhaps a less-commonly discussed issue emerging
from population growth is the covert resistance of increased population growth displayed by
individual’s claiming to be “more Colorado” than those who have been moving into Colorado,
coining the term “Colorado native”. In Colorado, this materializes through bumper stickers, T-
shirts, and door signs all bearing the words “Colorado Native”. This “native” identity is not only
displayed materialistically; but, most importantly, the identity of being a Colorado native is
constructed in interactions among friends, co-workers, and family members. The Colorado native
identity is constantly constituted and negotiated through everyday discourse. This is done
through the overt practice of utilizing the self-descriptor “Colorado native”, but also through
subtle linguistic practices that allow participants to claim, negotiate, or challenge an identity;
linguistic resources can be drawn upon to accomplish this work in both an ‘on record’ way,
where conversational partners can be held directly accountable for their conversational choices,
and in an ‘off record’ way, where conversationalists disagree, or offer dispreferred responses,
through utilizing non-attributable behaviors (like gaze).
To exemplify the employment of identity in conversation, take, for example, the
following segment:
1 JOE: [Bei]ng a native[ (.) I love nature (.) boy scout:[camping
2 ALE: [Yeah.
“I am also a Colorado native” 4
3 REN: [Why do
4 you keep looking at me? Heheh hh.
5 ALE: (heheh)
6 JOE: I dunno-
7 SAR: Well I t[hink peop]le[e are=
8 REN: [heheheheh]
9 JOE: [riding horses
10 REN: (hand on chest) [I am also a Colorado nati[ve.(heheheh.) Who
11 goes to boy scout camp and rides horses. Heheh (hand quickly off
12 chest)
Here, it is clear that Joe overtly claims the identity, “Colorado native”. By using the
specific descriptor, “Colorado native,” and not his name, or any other identity markers, he brings
to bear the relevant identity of being from Colorado—this is exemplified in line 1. In the context
of the conversation, his identity becomes important, and therefore he utilizes the outward
practice of claiming an identity he wishes to make known, in an on-record way, which reinforces
associations to and behaviors of being a Colorado native. Further along the segment, in lines 3
and 4, Renee interprets Joe’s gaze as accusatory, and makes her own claimed identity, as a
Colorado native, relevant in line 10. This is just a small taste of the identity work that is
accomplished in this conversation; it is the goal of this paper to further explore the detailed
mechanisms of identity construction around the issue of being a Colorado native (or non-native).
Purpose and Argument
The research presented in this report explores identity emergence in conversation and the
methods conversationalists utilize in mundane conversation in order to employ, display, and
make relevant their own identities. In doing so, it contributes to current linguistic research by
building upon findings of identity emergence in conversation, and further applies identity
emergence theories to topics not normally appearing in academic discourse (i.e. looking at
“I am also a Colorado native” 5
Colorado native identity versus gender and sexuality). Furthermore, this research contributes to
linguistic knowledge by examining both on and off the record behaviors, as well as the affective
physical practices, like gaze organization, gesturing, and facial expressions that occur in
cohesion with identity construction.
Identity
Personal portrayal, or expression of identity, reveals many personal attributes a person
desires to have, and desires to display, to other people. However, while identity is experienced
by every person, identities, most importantly, surface and manifest through interaction with
others. Bucholtz and Hall (2005) note that
“identity formation [and] indexicality relies heavily on ideological structures, for
associations between language and identity are rooted in cultural beliefs and values—that
is, ideologies—about the sorts of speakers who (can or should) produce particular sorts of
language” (p. 594).
One can develop greater insight into larger-held social beliefs when looking at identity-
in-interaction. In the case of Colorado natives, what constitutes a “native” becomes relevant
through the emerging and negotiated identities in conversation; deeper beliefs about that identity
become apparent in interaction, based on the language interlocuters produce when presenting a
“native” identity. Consequently, a “in-group” and “out-group” forms around being a native,
which is constituted by talk that reveals what participants believe makes a Colorado native.
These taken-for-granted conversational practices fit into larger sociological structures
surrounding identity.
During conversation, people utilize linguistic tools and structures to create a self-identity.
Bucholtz and Hall (2005) find that “performance is… emergent in the course of its unfolding in
“I am also a Colorado native” 6
specific encounters” (p. 587) and that there are specific processes that are complement to identity
emergence:
“Identity relations emerge in interaction through several related indexical processes,
including: (a) overt mention of identity categories and labels; (b) implicatures and
presuppositions regarding one’s own or others’ identity position; (c) displayed evaluative
and epistemic orientations to ongoing talk, as well as interactional footings and
participant roles; and (d) the use of linguistic structures and systems that are ideologically
associated with specific personas and groups” (p. 585).
This study analyzes one minute of a fifteen-minute conversation that displays emergence of the
identity, “Colorado native”. The data highlights the indexical processes outlined by Bucholtz and
Hall (2005), which helps contribute to and expand current knowledge of identity presentation in
conversation. This research affirms Bucholtz and Hall’s and Kitzinger’s (2005) findings through
applying them to a different context. Simultaneously, this research gives greater perspective into
gaze, gesture, and facial organization and other linguistic practices utilized in identity
construction, which is currently a gap in linguistic research. The association between identity and
linguistic practices such as gaze, gesture, and expression have seldom been looked at together,
especially when a gaze is treated as accusatory. Therefore, this study attempts to bring academic
knowledge closer to understanding the relationship between dynamic facial expressions and
social factors like identity, which influences the use of facial expressions. The study does not
cover a broad range of facial expressions in regard to identity, but emphasizes the identity-work
that occurs with gaze, self-referential gestures and blowing a raspberry.
Methods
“I am also a Colorado native” 7
To obtain data, I prepared five questions for a focus group to discuss for fifteen minutes
(see Appendix 1: Focus group questions). The video-recorded focus group consisted of four
participants who were also friends: Joe, Alex, Renee, and Sara (all pseudonyms), and they
discussed the questions openly for fifteen minutes. Kitzinger (2004) utilized a similar
methodology with participant interviews, and found that “the topic – as they are in research
interviews – are a response upon which the social participants draw to achieve their interactional
goals” (p. 8). In some respects, participants are primed to discuss particular topics, but
conversation is free flowing. The researcher was not present while the focus group conversed.
The excerpts utilized for data derive from a one-minute segment in which the participants
negotiate the identity of being a Colorado native.
Participants
There is no dictionary definition around what constitutes a “Colorado native”.
Semantically, “Colorado native” is a subjective, self-identifier. “Colorado native” can relate to
how long a person has lived in Colorado, if a person was born in Colorado, whether a person is a
Native American Indian from Colorado, or if a person has personal, emotional sentiments about
Colorado. For the purpose of this study, Colorado native will be used as a subjective identity
marker—rather than being based on the factors outlined above. Participants choose to claim the
identity of Colorado native, based on their subjective beliefs. This becomes relevant in the data,
when participants negotiate this identity.
Participant’s ages range from 22-23. Participants were chosen based on their self-
identification of being a Colorado native, or not. Participants are all friends, having known each
other for four years. Their profiles are:
“I am also a Colorado native” 8
Sara, aged 23, was born in Colorado and has lived in Colorado her entire life, and
identifies as a Colorado native.
Joe is aged 23, and similar to Sara, he was born in Colorado and has lived in Colorado his
entire life. He currently works for Colorado state park services, so he is directly aware of the
impact of the increased population growth on trails, and self-identifies as a Colorado native. Joe
is in a relationship with Sara and was in a horse-back riding program with Sara for 10 years.
Renee is aged 22. She was born in California but moved to Colorado when she was about
11 years old for three years, and then her family moved back to California. Renee chose to attend
college in Colorado and is currently living in Colorado. She identifies as a Colorado native, she
has expressed this to me personally, and she has a bumper sticker on her car claiming the identity
“Colorado Native”.
Alex is aged 22. He was born in Texas and moved to Colorado when he was 18 to attend
college. Alex does not identify as a Colorado native, but rather has stated that he is a “proud
Texan”.
Data
The data is a one-minute excerpt of a fifteen-minute conversation that demonstrates
participants’ engagement with the Colorado native identity. The data is transcribed utilizing
transcription conventions from Rebecca Clift’s (2016) Conversation Analysis.
Findings
The data exemplifies different identity-displaying moments with regard to the identity of
being a Colorado native or not. Below is the transcript of the segment being analyzed.
Screenshots of the participants’ gaze are included under the segment of the turn taking place. *It
“I am also a Colorado native” 9
is important to note that arrow color (either black or white) has no meaning—the color of the
arrow is chosen solely on visibility with the background of the image.
1 ALE: {reading} Do you think living (.) or being from Colorado has an
2 effect on
3 conceptualization or appreciation of nature-
4 REN: (heheheheheheh.)
5 JOE: -ye[s.
6 SAR: F[uck ye[a:h.]
7 REN: [Yea:p.]
8 ALE: How s::[˚o˚]
9 JOE: [Bei]ng a native[ (.) I love nature (.) boy scout:[camping
10 ALE: [Yeah.
11 REN: [Why do
12 you keep looking at me? Heheh hh.
13 ALE: (heheh)
14 JOE: I dunno-
15 SAR: Well I t[hink peop]le[e are=
16 REN: [heheheheh]
17 JOE: [riding horses
18 REN: (hand on chest) [I am also a Colorado nati[ve. (heheheh.) Who
19 goes to boy scout camp and rides horses. Hehe[h (hand quicklyoff
20 chest)
21 SAR: [=I think we’re
22 grown up like, we grow up being taught to like respect it and
23 also just like gaining respect for nature because [we’re
24 REN: [because you’re
25 in it.
26 SAR: Yeah. And l[ike-
27 REN: [and people who live here go outside= (be outside.)
28 SAR: =I think people that move here a lot of them do have respect but
29 (.) some don’t.
“I am also a Colorado native” 10
31 REN: Yeah.
32 (.5)
33 REN: I think being familiar with it makes it so much easier for you to
34 have respect for it.
35 SAR: And like if you don’t grow up like hiking or being outside like
36 you can’t know (.) how to treat trails
Throughout the findings section, both on record and off record identity work is analyzed
throughout the course of the interaction.
In the first segment, Alex is reading the provided question.
1 ALE: {reading} Do you think living (.) or being from Colorado has an
2 effect on
3 conceptualization or appreciation of nature-
4 REN: (heheheheheheh.)
When Alex reads the given question, all of the participants are gazing down. The gaze in
the conversation begins as normally expected in a conversation. In normal turn-taking
conventions, turns at talk consist of various sequences—these sequences minimally consist of a
first pair part and a second pair part. Within the data, Alex asking the question elicits a
subsequent action of an answer. Therefore, speakers become mobilized to begin the sequence.
“I am also a Colorado native” 11
5 JOE: -ye[s.]
6 SAR: [Fu]ck ye[a:h.]
7 REN: [Yea:]p.
Joe is providing the answer to Alex’s question, completing the adjacency pair. Sara and
Renee also answer the question after Joe.
After Alex is done reading, his gaze begins shifting towards Sara and Joe, and Joe has
quickly provided the strong, affirmative answer, “Yes.” Sara, soon thereafter, offers the response
“Fuck yeah”. While responding, both Joe and Sara change their gaze to look upward. Two beats
later, Renee responds, “Yea:p”, but her gaze remains looking down. Alex orients to Joe and
Sara’s response by beginning the question, “How so”. Stivers and Rosanno (2010) confirm that
“speaker gaze to the recipient is another turn design feature that mobilizes response” (p. 8).
Alex’s gaze moves towards Sara and Joe, and he is thus utilizing the turn-taking function of
gaze.
Joe’s receives the conversational floor when he responds “Yes”. Joe’s response is type-
conforming—it follows the structure of the preceding question (Clift, 2016, p. 152), which is a
yes or no interrogative. According to Raymond (2003), “typically, preferred responses are
“I am also a Colorado native” 12
produced immediately and without qualification” (p. 943). Joe answers in a structurally-preferred
way, because his answer is immediate and, at that moment, Joe did not offer any further
explanation for his answer. Additionally, Joe could have chosen to say “yeah”, however, his
“yes” is a stronger response than “yeah”. Joe’s immediacy and strong “yes” could be an on-
record display of Joe’s belief that he has a higher epistemic knowledge on the topic in
comparison to his conversational partners. Epistemic status is how speakers “recognize one
another to be more or less knowledgeable concerning some domain of knowledge” (Heritage,
2012, p. 32), whereas epistemic stance is “how speakers position themselves in terms of
epistemic status in and through the design of turns at talk” (Heritage, 2012, p.33). Both epistemic
status and epistemic stance become relevant in the data, because the actions of the speaker
reinforce their epistemic position within the conversation. Through the “precise timing of a
response such as yes, the recipient may display that [he] has some independent information”
(Sorjonen, 2001, p. 27). Thus, by quickly responding “yes” Joe is displaying that he will likely
express his high epistemic status through additional turns at talk in the interaction.
There is an upgrading of answers that occurs due to a resistance to the question being
asked. Sara treats the question as having an obvious answer, this is shown through her “fuck”
prefaced response. This interactional segment presents the beginning of identity emergence in
the interaction.
Sara responds in a strongly preferred manner, building off of Joe’s response. Sara
upgrades on Joe’s response in the micromoment after hearing the beginning of Joe’s “yes”,
which is when she starts the response “Fuck yeah”. While Sara does not utilize an “oh-prefaced”
response (Heritage, 1998, p. 292), parallels between an “oh-prefaced” and a “fuck-prefaced”
response can be made. Heritage (1998) noted that “an oh-prefaced response to an inquiry can
“I am also a Colorado native” 13
indicate that the question to which it responds is inapposite in some way, and it can do so
inexplicitly and self-attentively” (p. 296). Sara’s fuck-prefaced response is a stronger form of the
“oh” that would one might find in this circumstance, and demonstrates a resistance to the
question Alex presents in lines 1-3. By utilizing the “oh-prefaced” structure, Sara treats the
answer the question as “already known. . . from antecedent contexts of joint understandings that
are invokable, and in most cases invoked, as taken for granted” (p. 297).
I suggest that there is a possibility that Sara displays her identity of a Colorado native
through her strong response. Sara might be orienting the interlocutors to her strong epistemic
status that could be grounded to her Colorado native identity. The use of “fuck yeah” as an
upgrade to Joe’s “yes” is suggestive that Sara wants her second position answer to be heard by
her interlocutors as her own, independent answer, rather than just an agreement with Joe. In
conversation, the response to a first pair part (i.e. a question) is a second pair part (i.e. an
answer). A position, according to Clift (2016) is “the placement of a turn in a sequence” (p. 16),
in this particular sequence, Joe answers in the first position, Sara answers in the second position,
and Renee answers in the third position. Sara seems to be trying make her response independent
through the use of fuck. In contrast, Renee comes third in the interaction and replies “yea:p”,
which is not as strong, and therefore supporting that Renee is not working to make her answer
independent; Renee could be simply agreeing with Joe and Sara.
8 ALE: How s::[˚o˚]
9 JOE: [Bei]ng a native[ (.) I love nature (.) boy scout:[camping
10 ALE: [Yeah.
“I am also a Colorado native” 14
After the first question-answer sequence comes to completion, Alex initiates a second
sequence, with a question, at line 8. Even though Alex’s gaze is towards Sara, which normally
would select Sara to speak, Joe responds to Alex’s question at line 9. Using the descriptor
“Colorado native”, Joe creates a relevant identity with which interactants can identify. The
referent becomes a marked, central piece of conversation because of participant understanding of
the associations of that identity.
Bucholtz and Hall (2005) claimed that “the most obvious and direct way that identities
can be constituted through talk is the overt introduction of referential identity categories into the
discourse” (p. 594). Joe uses the term “native”, and uses invokes a perception of what he
believes constitutes a Colorado native, through qualifiers, which self-validates Joe’s idea of why
he can claim the identity of native. “Where there are equally ‘accurate’ alternatives drawn from
non-relational category sets” (Kitzinger, 2004, p. 19), Joe overtly chooses the particular category
of Colorado native, thus making “Colorado native” a relevant identifier.
Kitzinger’s (2005) study investigating heteronormativity in interaction uncovers that
heterosexuals do not preface their talk with ‘speaking as a heterosexual’. Rather, the
“I am also a Colorado native” 15
heterosexual identity is the hegemonic norm in comparison to the homosexual identity—
therefore, heterosexual speakers do not highlight this identity as they make other identities
relevant. By comparing Kitzinger’s findings to the Colorado native data, we can ask: Why would
Joe choose to highlight his identity as a native, when this Colorado native identity is the norm,
and everyone in the interaction knows he is a native?
The construction of Joe’s turn, “Being a Colorado native…” parallels Kitzinger’s (2005)
findings comparing heterosexual and homosexual speech in conversation. Similar to how
homosexuals utilize talk that conveys information about their sexual orientation (Kitzinger,
2005, p. 254), Joe’s phrasing of “being a native” immediately orients the participants to this
particular facet of his many identities. Kitzinger, citing Schegloff (1997), argues “the fact that
someone can be categorized with reference to a particular identity category does not make that
identity automatically relevant in any particular interaction” (p. 225-226). All of the participants
in the interaction are aware that Joe was born and raised in Colorado. Therefore, there was no
question of Joe’s belonging to the identity category of “Colorado native”, yet he chooses to
identify himself on-record in this way. Like Kitzinger’s findings that heterosexual speech is
commonplace and automatically “gives off” their heterosexuality (p. 255), Joe’s identity as a
Colorado native is commonplace knowledge among the interactants—his “Coloradoness” is
given off based on his already known identity. Therefore, Joe does not have to overtly state “I
am a Colorado native” to make his native identity. Similar to just “doing being heterosexual”
(Kitzinger, 2005, p. 255), Joe could just “do being a Colorado native”. Also notable is that the
original question asks if living or being from Colorado has an effect on conceptualization or
appreciation of nature. Joe matches his response to the stronger identity-tying term being. By
“I am also a Colorado native” 16
choosing this, Joe places greater value and legitimacy on how being from Colorado allows a
greater epistemic status in comparison to just living in Colorado.
So why then, does Joe choose to make this identity relevant? Joe brings the relevant
identity to the conversation in order to contrast himself among group members. Particularly, he
contrasts himself with Renee, who he is looking at while claiming the identity of a native. Joe
making his Colorado native identity relevant gives him a higher epistemic status and more
credibility in answering the question Alex presented. However, this presentation of a higher
epistemic status would not be apparent without Joe’s turn construction, which displays his
epistemic stance. Epistemic stance “captures the moment-by-moment positioning of participants
with respect to each other in and through the talk” (Clift, 2016, p. 203) Joe’s turn is constructed
in a way that places his epistemic status (being a Colorado native) in a higher position in
comparison to his interlocuters.
After Joe states his identity, he offers qualifiers for the identity of Colorado native. Clift
(2016) discusses that “attached to particular categories are what [Sacks] calls ‘category bound
activities’ shaping the particular inferences we draw” (p. 190). Joe claims the activities boy
scouts, camping, and riding horses. These qualifiers can be seen in lines 9 and 17. Joe offers
these category-bound activities as his inferences into what makes a Colorado native. Schiffrin
(1996) discusses that “we verbally place our past experiences in, and make them relevant to, a
particular “here” and “now”, a particular audience, and a particular set of interactional concerns
and interpersonal issues” (Schiffrin, 1996, p. 168). The verbalization of Joe’s experiences is
made relevant in association to the referent “Colorado native”; giving him association to other
member categories that qualifies one as a “Colorado native”. Similar to what Hirshey (2017)
found, “in conversation… members construct a macro-identity category…by making qualities
“I am also a Colorado native” 17
and actions relevant (or not) to both the conversation and their understandings of self” (p. 7), Joe
exhibits his idea of the “macro-category” requirements for a Colorado native; thus, the qualifiers
become the category-bound activities that exhibits Joe’s understanding of how he exemplifies
being a Colorado native.
Joe gazes at Renee immediately after saying “Being a native”, rather than at Alex, who
does not identify as a Colorado native, even though Alex asked the question “How so”.
Traditionally, the turn-taking function of gaze would be used with a response, and Joe would
return Alex’s gaze. Joe’s resistance to traditional turn-taking structures furthers the idea that he
is, off the record, challenging and problematizing Renee’s claimed Colorado native identity. He
is enacting a particular status entitlement that he does not see Renee as having. It could be argued
that Joe’s gaze, phrasing, and descriptor are all constructing the action of positioning himself in
contrast to Renee, which would indirectly take issues with her claims (outside of this interaction)
of being a Colorado native. Renee is looking downward, even though Joe is looking in her
direction. Joe does not break this gaze, even when Renee returns the look.
“I am also a Colorado native” 18
When Joe says the word “native”, Renee looks up and her gaze becomes locked with
Joe’s. Renee’s changed gaze when Joe brought the relevant identity of “native” into discussion,
demonstrates that she is also orienting to the identity that Joe claimed for himself.
11 REN: [Why do
12 you keep looking at me? Heheh hh.
Throughout his turn, Joe continues looking at Renee. His gaze does not break until Renee
challenges him with the account-solicitation, “Why do you keep looking at me?”. Renee brings
Joe’s off-record gaze behavior into relevance within the conversation, and this is one of Renee’s
first mechanisms of identity defense. Renee treats Joe’s gaze as accusatory—this is evident
through her overt challenge of Joe’s behavior. Joe has made his identity of Colorado native clear,
through his statement “Being a native”—therefore, this statement and Joe’s gaze produces a
contrast with Renee. Renee makes the gaze relevant by bringing Joe’s behavior to bear when she
asks, “Why do you keep looking at me”. The pronoun “you” explicitly calls Joe out on the
prolonged gaze, and by using the word “keep” Renee implies that the length of Joe’s gaze is
problematic. Kuhnke (2015) finds that “people in control of the interaction demonstrate their
dominance by choosing when and how long to look at someone” (Chapter 5). Both Joe and
“I am also a Colorado native” 19
Renee then problematize the identity positions that have been presented in conversation. Renee,
who was targeted by Joe’s gaze, self-selects, which also is dispreferred because she self-selects
during Joe’s turn at talk. Therefore, one can deduce that Joe’s problematization of Renee’s
identity through gaze was accusatory enough for Renee to solicit an account for Joe’s prolonged
stare. Overall, Joe problematizes Renee’s identity in an off-record way—and Renee brings the
problematization to relevance by challenging Joe’s off record behavior.
14 JOE: I dunno-
15 SAR: Well I t[hink peop]le[e are=
16 REN: [heheheheh]
17 JOE: [riding horses
When Renee makes this challenge clear, Joe breaks his gaze and instead looks at the
camera and says, “I dunno”. Joe breaks gaze because his behavior becomes too on-record. Joe’s
response is confounding to us as analysts because it could semantically function as a direct
response to Renee’s question, or act as a continuation of his turn in line 9. Both are potential
possibilities.
“I am also a Colorado native” 20
Also occurring during this moment is Sara beginning to offer her answer to Alex’s initial
question. Once Sara speaks, Renee’s gaze briefly shifts from Joe to Sara. Sara begins with a
well-prefaced response, suggesting “that the response will not be straightforward” (Heritage,
2015, p. 92) and Sara’s turn should “be treated as an initial component of an expanded turn that
will take additional units to complete” (Heritage, 2015, p. 92). Additionally, Karkkainen (2003)
finds that the phrase “‘I think’ occurs in certain sequential position, namely in second-part parts
of adjacency pairs, where the current speaker perceives some minor interactional trouble in the
preceding turn” (p. 130). Arguably, Sara has picked up on the interactional trouble that is
occurring between Joe and Renee, and her “Well I think” demonstrates that she will “shift back
to an earlier or to a completely new point” (Karkkainen, 2013, p. 128). She also expresses “I
think” at a higher volume and pitch, prosodically indicating her epistemic stance is valuable and
relevant to the context of the interaction. Sara’s turn is likely going to be an extended turn
(highlighted by the well-preface) as a second pair part in response to Alex.
18 REN: (hand on chest) [I am also a Colorado nati[ve. (heheheh.) Who
19 goes to boy scout camp and rides horses. Heheh (hand quickly off
20 chest)
“I am also a Colorado native” 21
After challenging Joe by saying “Why do you keep looking at me?”, Renee gazes briefly
at Sara when Sara says “Well” in the beginning of her turn, but then re-shifts her gaze back to
Joe to say, “I am also a Colorado native”. Joe glances at Sara, also orienting to the beginning of
Sara’s turn, and looks back at Renee to offer the qualifier “riding horses”. Both Joe’s and
Renee’s gaze toward Sara illustrate that they recognize that Sara is beginning a turn, yet both Joe
and Renee utilize interjacent overlap— “beginning [their turns at talk] at a point where the prior
turn is nowhere near possible completion and transition ready” (Clift, 2016, p.127)—in
conjunction with Sara’s turn to negotiate their identities even further.
Renee states “I am also a Colorado native”, and directs this statement towards Joe.
This turn displays the importance of the Colorado native identity to Renee—if the identity was
not important to her, it is unlikely that she would have engaged in interjacent overlap and make
the overt claim that she is a Colorado native. Subsequently, Renee challenges Joe’s gaze, treating
it as challenging her own identity as a native, Renee resists Joe’s challenge by returning a
prolonged gaze and using the self-identifying phrase “I am also a Colorado native”.
Renee utilizes the category “Colorado native” in line 18. Renee orients to Joe’s identity
by using the same category, therefore placing Joe and herself as equally deserving of claiming
“I am also a Colorado native” 22
the identity. She continues to relate to Joe’s identity, stating in lines 18 and 19: “[I am also a
Colorado nati[ve. (heheheh.) Who goes to boy scout camp and rides horses.” Renee continues
to level her identity with Joe’s identity by utilizing the same qualifiers Joe does to describe his
Colorado native identity, Renee format-ties (Goodwin, 1990) her statement with Joe’s statement.
Format-tying is when “participants make creative pragmatic use of the local environment of
talk… for the formulation of their next utterances” (p. 284). Those who format-tie “display their
common alignment toward a target” (p.285). Renee’s repetition of the same category and
qualifiers Joe used earlier in the segment illustrates her alignment to the Colorado native identity.
Renee enacts a particular gesture when she defends her identity. Shown below is an
image of Renee with her hand on her chest.
This occurs when Renee says, “I am also a Colorado native, who goes to boy scout
camp and rides horses”. Renee utilizes this self-referential gesture for a long duration, and does
not take her hand off her chest until after she completes her turn. Turk (2007) describes that “the
chest hold, when the hand is held against the chest, [is] used when one has been accused of
something”. Renee’s chest-hold further supports the notion that she understood Joe’s gaze as
accusatory, or challenging. Turk (2007) also found that “self-referential gestures are produced in
“I am also a Colorado native” 23
proximity to a prosodically-stressed first person term” and that these gestures can be used to
“emphasize individuated experience” (p. 559, 564). Renee’s self-referential gesture is used to
emphasize her individuated identity, as partially represented through the use of the gesture in
proximity to her referential pronoun, I, and the semantic meaning of the sentence.
The entire interaction between Joe and Renee is a side-sequence (Jefferson 1972). The
overall ongoing action within this segment is the sequence where Alex asks, “How so”. Sara is
attempting to offer her perspective, but it is interrupted by a side sequence. Jefferson (1972)
claims that participants may initiate a side sequence when “there are occurrences one might feel
are not ‘part’ of the activity but which appear in some sense relevant” (p. 294). Renee makes it
clear that she thinks Joe’s gaze is accusatory, therefore she makes the gaze relevant, and,
subsequently, re-proclaims her identity as a Colorado native. Furthermore, Renee enacts a “break
in the activity”, and assumes that “the ongoing activity will resume” (p. 294). Renee legitimizes
her own Colorado native identity in order to establish that her contributions to the conversation
are legitimately grounded in her experience. A common feature within side sequences are
“repeats” (p. 296). Repeats are conversational items that replicate what is said before, and they
can “have intonation that is regularly characterized as ‘disbelief’ [or] ‘surprise’” these repeats
reference “a specific prior object as its product-item” (p. 299, 296). In Renee’s case, the repeat
occurs with the label “Colorado native”, and the Colorado native identity, therefore, becomes the
product item that is being negotiated within this side sequence. However, Jefferson also notes
that these types of repeats “characteristically signal that there is a problem in [the] product item,
and [the repeat’s] work is to generate further talk directed to remedying the problem” (p. 299).
Renee’s Colorado native identity has become problematized during the side sequence, and Renee
“I am also a Colorado native” 24
is attempting to remedy the attack on her identity through initiating more talk around the
problematized subject.
The next action I examine is the raspberry Joe blows after Renate states “I am also a
Colorado native”. After Renee completes the phrase “Colorado native”, Joe returns his gaze
towards Renee and blows a raspberry. Meanwhile, Alex is gazing at Sara who is continuing her
turn, and Sara is gazing at Renee.
Ruusuvuori & Perakyla (2009) find that “facial expression is a flexible interactional
resource that is easily adaptable to the contingencies of a situation” (p. 392). Although there has
“I am also a Colorado native” 25
been extensive research on facial expressions and their connection to emotions, there have not
been many studies that link social factors and facial expressions (Namba et al., 2016, p. 594).
Some studies connect the use of blowing a raspberry to cognitive understanding of social
positions and cues (Bates, 1979; Corballis, 2011); however, there are not many extensive studies
examine the meaning behind using a raspberry, especially in regards to identity. In the case of
Joe’s raspberry towards Renee, I argue that Joe utilizes the raspberry as a means of sarcastic
conclusion to their sequence.
Connor (2014) notes that “the action known as ‘blowing a raspberry’… is an imitative
dismissal” (p. 135), and that “the purpose of such comical eruption is, of course, to provoke
laughter” (p. 137). Therefore, it can be argued that Joe utilizes a raspberry in order to conclude
the sequence between him and Renee, but also to dismiss the identity claim that occurred in
Renee’s prior turn. When Joe blows the raspberry at Renee, he is orienting to “negative
representations [that] derive from considerations of recipient design and local interactional
concerns” (Kitzinger, 2005, p. 231). He displays that he does not like Renee’s identity
negotiation with him, or her recognition and ‘calling out’ his off-record actions.1
1 Furthermore, the raspberry is a dynamic facial expression that combines a variety of
different facial expressions. A raspberry generally consists of pursing one’s lips, squinting one’s
eyes, and scrunching one’s nose. According to Matsumoto & Hwang (2013), lips tightening
often exhibit anger, and a wrinkled nose can display disgust (p. 17). Matsumoto & Hwang
continue, finding that “disgust is an interesting emotion because people are not only disgusted at
objects… but they are also disgusted at other people… the function of disgust is to eliminate the
contaminated objects or idea” (p. 17). Arguably, the combination of facial expressions used in a
raspberry display both a serious and playful reaction from Joe regarding Renee’s identity. The
raspberry could be a “toned down” version of the disbelief, anger, and disgust that is associated
with pursed lips, a wrinkled nose and squinted eyes; and the comical nature of a raspberry tones
down the severity of the facial actions occurring during a raspberry. The duality of the purpose
of a raspberry also coincides with the finding that facial expressions “display the speaker’s
vacillating stance, corresponding to the vocal action where the twofold stance was also
observable” (Ruusuvuori & Perakyla, 2009, p. 391). In the data, Joe displays multiple stances to
Renee’s identity by blowing a raspberry. The raspberry becomes the source of an interesting
“I am also a Colorado native” 26
When Renee makes her identity position clear, she re-orients her gaze towards Sara, who
is still continuing her turn. Renee extends her turn when she says, “who goes to boy scout camp
and rides horses.” It is also important to note that Renee chooses the present tense of “go”, and
as if the action is ongoing, and continuing. This parallels the idea of Renee’s identity of being a
Colorado native as being in the present, and not in the past.
dialectic: the physical aspects of a raspberry allude to Joe’s disregard of Renee’s identity of a
Colorado native, whereas the playful nature of a raspberry orients to Joe’s desire to maintain
friendship with Renee.
“I am also a Colorado native” 27
21 SAR: [=I think we’re
22 grown up like, we grow up being taught to like respect it and
23 also just like gaining respect for nature because [we’re
24 REN: [because you’re
25 in it.
After Renee fully completes her side sequence, she returns her arm back to home position
and shifts her gaze back to Sara, who is still attempting to continue her turn. Once again, Sara
begins her sequence with “I think”. Sara is fully aware of the identity tension and negotiation
between Renee and Joe. Karkkainen (2003) claims that “by placing I think at the beginning of
the intonation unit the speaker wants to display a certain stance towards its content, and by
extension to the conversational activity and to the coparticipants” (p. 120). Sara’s turn does not
explicitly claim an epistemic authority over other members (she is doing being a Colorado
native), but her turn does display an epistemic stance regarding why Colorado natives appreciate
nature. Moreover, I think “simultaneously points backward and forward in discourse: backward,
as its use is engendered by the trouble perceived in the previous turn, and forward, as it deals
with that trouble by marking that the current speaker’s perspective will follow” (Karkkainen,
“I am also a Colorado native” 28
2003, p. 130). There is still identity negotiation and resistance occurring in Sara’s turn. Her
use—and repetition of—"I think” demonstrates that Sara recognized the trouble that was
occurring in Renee and Joe’s side sequence. Trouble also occurred due to the overlap of Renee
and Sara’s side sequence. Schegloff (1974) finds that “identical repeats of turn beginnings, and
identical repeats of rather long turn beginnings occur regularly when there has been an overlap of
the turn beginning with the prior turn” (p. 74). Sara clearly repeats the phrase “I think” and “we
grow up” indicating that she is enacting turn-beginning recycling (Schegloff, 1974) to manage
the overlap that has taken place during her turn. At the same time, I think also projects that Sara
will offer her perspectives about the semantic content of the original on-going activity of Alex
asking the question “how so”.
Other significant work is done by Sara in this turn at talk. Sara uses the pronoun “we” in
conjunction with “grow up in it”. The “we” highlights a particular member category that Sara is
enforcing within her turn. It is ambiguous who the referent is, however, it could be that Sara is
distinguishing all Colorado natives at this point in her turn, and using the terms “grow(n) up” to
categorize Colorado natives as people who grow up in Colorado. There is still tension between
Sara and Renee, albeit discreet. For instance, Sara uses the pronoun “we”, and then her turn is
pre-emptively completed by Renee, who says “because you’re in it”. According to Lerner
(2004), “[pre-emptive] completion… can be responsive to the action the ongoing turn is
implementing, but in most circumstances, that responding action is not called for until the
possible completion of the full TCU” (p. 230). In other words, Renee responded with the
completion as a response to the content of Sara’s turn in line 23. However, because Sara was not
at a place of possible completion with her TCU, Renee’s pre-emptive completion was not
necessary. It is possible to speculate that Renee utilizes pre-emptive completion in order to
“I am also a Colorado native” 29
validate her epistemic knowledge about growing up in Colorado in conjunction with Sara’s
epistemic knowledge.
Additional negotiation continues when Renee uses “you’re” as a universal “you” in order
to broaden the scope of the identity, Colorado native, to anyone living in Colorado. Further, the
tense changes from the past—referring to “growing up” in nature—to the present—still “being
in” nature. This brief “push-and-pull” is an instance of less obvious identity negotiation
occurring in the segment.
Identity is relevant here because Sara and Renee are negotiating who fits within the
category of “Colorado native”. Sara claims epistemic authority over the identity, as demonstrated
by her use of “we”. The we implies a level of ownership that allows Sara to make the claims
about how influential growing up in Colorado is on someone’s appreciation for nature. Sara’s
wording distances her from Renee, and there is still separation in the idea of what makes an
individual “more or less” Coloradan.
26 SAR: Yeah. And l[ike-
27 REN: [and people who l[ive ]here go outside= (be outside.)
28 ALE: [huh.]
28 SAR: =I think people that move here a lot of them do have respect but
29 (.) some don’t.
31 REN: Yeah. (looks down)
“I am also a Colorado native” 30
In this segment, there is still slight identity defense from Renee, and identity resistance
from Sara. However, the overall amount of identity negotiation is lessening. Renee partakes in
another interjacent overlap—although it could be argued that Renee interpreted Sara’s agreement
as a place of possible completion to create a turn end overlap. Renee then shifts from the second
person referent “you’re” to the third person referent “people”. There is a continued shift into the
present tense in this segment, implying that the “people who live here” currently are living in
Colorado and go outside, which is why they develop an appreciation of nature. However, there is
little proof within the data that demonstrates that Renee is utilizing her statement in line 27 to
qualify why people who go outside are Colorado natives. At that point, Sara then resists Renee’s
claims by utilizing a contrastive category when she says, “people who move here”—this is a
direct contrast to Renee’s comments about “people who live here”. Sara’s I think prefacing also
is used this time to disassociate her opinions from Renee’s, and Karkkainen (2003) reiterates that
the presence of I think in second pair parts can show “a less than hundred percent alignment with
the preceding turn” (p. 137). Sara is still resisting Renee’s claims, Sara constructs her turn, and
displays her epistemic stance, which reflects her higher epistemic status about Coloradan’s
behaviors.
“I am also a Colorado native” 31
32 (.5)
33 REN: I think being familiar with it makes it so much easier for you to
34 have respect for it.
35 SAR: And like if you don’t grow up like hiking or being outside like
36 you can’t know (.) how to treat trails
The end of the segment brings a heightened sense that the Colorado native identity has
been negotiated. There is still resistance in these turns—for example, Renee in lines 33 says “I
think being familiar with it”, whereas in line 35 Sara notes that “if you don’t grow up like
hiking…”. There is still a discreet disagreement as to what constitutes a person’s respect for
nature, and this emerges through the contrasting claims of “being familiar” with nature versus
“growing up” in nature. Sara holds more regard for those who grow up in nature, whereas Renee
makes it clear that just being familiar with nature is what constitutes respect for nature.
Therefore, the personal identity-work has shifted away from identity defending and has become a
negotiation about who does or does not have respect for nature. Sara is still claiming a higher
epistemic stance through her use of “growing up”; she is implying that a longer time spent within
Colorado, or nature, constitutes a respect for nature. Contrarily, Renee makes the claim that
being familiar with nature is enough to respect it.
“I am also a Colorado native” 32
Conclusion
With a consistently growing population, the identity of “Colorado native” in Colorado
has become increasingly relevant. This identity is continually produced and reproduced through
materialistic means, such as bumper stickers and t-shirts, but it is also a topic that arises through
conversation. The identity does not only emerge from conversation, but it is continually
constructed and negotiated through interactions. The Colorado native identity is constitutive, and
created through the utilization of linguistic resources.
Fascinating identity work is being done throughout the interaction between Alex, Renee,
Joe and Sara. Building off of the identity research that has been done by Bucholtz and Hall
(2005) and Kitzinger (2005), this study explored both on-record and off-record behaviors. On-
record behaviors such as turn construction, the use of identity categories, and questioning of off-
record behaviors, as well as off-record behaviors like gaze, self-referential gestures, and blowing
a raspberry worked to create and challenge participant’s identity positions throughout the
interaction. Through the exploration of this data we have achieved a heightened understanding of
the mechanisms of identity construction among those who identify as a “Colorado native”, and,
whilst doing so, we have perhaps gained greater general insight into identity construction as a
whole.
“I am also a Colorado native” 33
Appendix 1: Focus Group Questions
Focus Group Interview Questions
Brittney Johnston, Fall 2017
1) The population in Colorado has grown 9.7% from 2010 to 2016. In recent years, there has
also been a number of popular hiking trails including Hanging Lake, Boulder’s Sanitas
trail, Conundrum Hot Springs, and Mt. Bierstadt that have experienced various issues and
need to close. Do you think the population growth and trail harm are related? Please
explain either way.
2) What issues related to human impact do you think these trails face?
3) Do you think this is a recent issue or is it ongoing?
4) Do you think living in/being from Colorado has an effect on conceptualization or
appreciation of nature? In what ways does this have an effect?
5) What can be done to better communicate about these issues?
“I am also a Colorado native” 34
References
Bates, E. (1979). The emergence of symbols: Cognition and communication in infancy. New
York: Academic Press.
Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic
approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4/5), 585-614. 10.1177/1461445605054407
Corballis, M. C. (2011). The recursive mind: The origins of human language, thought, and
civilization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Clift, R. (2016). Conversation analysis. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University
Press.
Connor, S. (2014). Beyond words : sobs, hums, stutters and other vocalizations. Retrieved from
https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Corballis, M. C. (2011). The recursive mind: The origins of human language, thought, and
civilization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books
Goodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. (2007). Children socializing children: Practices for negotiating
the social order among peers. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 40(4), 279-
289. 10.1080/08351810701471260
Heritage, J. (2012). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of
knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 30-52.
10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in english conversation: A conversation analytic
perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88-104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.008
“I am also a Colorado native” 35
Jefferson, Gail (1972) Side sequences. In D.N. Sudnow (Ed.) Studies in social
interaction (pp.294-33). New York, NY: Free Press.
Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic stance in english conversation : a description of its
interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Retrieved from
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Kitzinger, C. (in press-a). Heteronormativity in action: Reproducing the heterosexual nuclear
family in “after hours” medical calls. Social Problems. Special Section: Language,
interaction, and social problems.
Kitzinger, C., & Mandelbaum, J. (2013). Word selection and social identities in talk-in-
interaction. Communication Monographs, 80(2), 176-198.
10.1080/03637751.2013.776171
Kuhnke, E. (2015). Communication essentials for dummies (2;2;2nd; ed.). Milton, Queensland:
Wiley Publishing Australia.
Lerner, G. H. (2004). Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation.
Amsterdam;Philadelphia;: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Namba, S., Makihara, S., Kabir, R. S., Miyatani, M., & Nakao, T. (2017). Spontaneous facial
expressions are different from posed facial expressions: Morphological properties and
dynamic sequences. Current Psychology, 36(3), 593-605. 10.1007/s12144-016-9448-9
Perinbanayagam, R. S. (2012). Identity's moments: The self in action and interaction. Lanham:
Lexington Books.
QuickFacts. (n.d.). Retrieved March 11, 2018, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CO.
Raymond, C. W. (2012). Reallocation of pronouns through contact: In‐the‐moment identity
construction amongst southern california salvadorans. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 16(5),
“I am also a Colorado native” 36
669-690. 10.1111/josl.12001
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure
of Responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6), 939.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752
Ruusuvuori, J., & Peräkylä, A. (2009). Facial and verbal expressions in assessing stories and
topics. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42(4), 377-394.
10.1080/08351810903296499
Sacks, H. (1984). On doing “being ordinary.” In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures
of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 413–429). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1997a). Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair.
Discourse Processes, 23, 499–545.
Schegloff, Emanuel. (1987). Recycled turn beginnings; A precise repair mechanism in
conversation's turn-taking organization.
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction. In B.
A. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–485). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Schiffrin, D. (1996). Narrative as self-portrait: Sociolinguistic constructions of
identity.Language in Society, 25(2), 167-203. 10.1017/S0047404500020601
Sorjonen, M. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in finnish.
Amsterdam;Philadelphia;: J. Benjamins.